Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Chris Webber to call his final timeout

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

    ....not overwhelming? What the hell?

    If 20/10/5 isn't overwhelming, what the **** is?

    Bird, Baylor, Garnett, Webber.

    There's your list of 20/10/5 forwards. Ever.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

      Might as well, He ain't getting no play in Golden State
      R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
        In my mind he is a Hall of Famer, though he needs to get in the back of the line and wait for overlooked players like Artis Gilmore to get in first.
        The fact that a guy like Artis Gilmore isn't in the Basketball HOF just tells you how much credibility that organization has and that nobody should really take it too seriously.

        The NBA/old ABA needs to have their own Hall of Fame, really.

        The HOF we talk about in Springfield lets in men/women from all over the world. A lot of these people you've never heard of. Some of them are womens players who played in college and a couple of times in the Olympics. They're in but a guy like Artis Gilmore isn't. What a joke.

        Ironically, college basketball and FIBA have their own Halls of Fame. And there is also a seperate women's BBall Hall of Fame. The NBA is the only prominent organization w/o their own HOF.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          He's a lot like Mitch Richmond...the individual stats to make it to the HoF, but the lack of team success to be considered one of the best to ever play his position.
          I have a feeling Webber wont get in to the HOF partly cause of his tenure involving the Fab 5 who apparantly never existed. Webber did much better than Mitch Richmond team wise, getting to the WCF in a series they should have won.

          People arent emphasising the 5 assists per game part. As you said there's 4 forwards who have ever done that.

          The basketball hall of fame is so anti-nba, its sad. We're gonna see people like Dick Vitale going to the hall over all-time great players because he managed to get a few catch-phrases.
          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

          ----------------- Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

            Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post

            The basketball hall of fame is so anti-nba, its sad. We're gonna see people like Dick Vitale going to the hall over all-time great players because he managed to get a few catch-phrases.
            The NBA should develop their own HOF. David Stern says he doesn't want to because it would seem exclusive and he doesn't wants it to be about basketball and not just one league, but ......

            Why shouldn't they?

            The MLB Hall of Fame is pretty much all about Major League Baseball (with the exception of some recognition of Negro league players). The Pro Football HOF is all about the NFL/AFL.

            Why can't the NBA have their own HOF? If you stick to this current system, guys like Artis Gilmore and Webber will be trumped in favor of some female player from Bolivia who played in a couple of Olympics that you wouldn't even care to watch.

            I don't see how anyone can take the Basketball HOF in Springfield seriously.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

              Was it ever determined if Webber made more money at Michigan than he did in the pros?
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                Was it ever determined if Webber made more money at Michigan than he did in the pros?
                Webber made money at Michigan, but not $120M like that contract he signed with the Kings.

                Whatever money he made in college, he earned it. Just like Reggie Bush at USC. Those guys made millions upon millions for the NCAA and their respective universities, it's not even funny.

                From a moral standpoint, I don't have any problems with guys like Webber and Bush getting the ca$h they got in college. Zero. They earned it. And they sure as hell earned some serious cash for the NCAA.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                  I can see Weber being skipped over. The Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't do a good job. We should start our own Hall of Fame.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    I can see Weber being skipped over. The Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't do a good job. We should start our own Hall of Fame.
                    I'll come out and say it.

                    They have a double standard against tall black guys who played in the NBA, made highlight dunks, liked playing one on one, wore baggy shorts with black shoes, talked trash, had sex with multitudes of women, shunned the NCAA, made ridiculous amounts of money and hung out with big entourages.

                    OK, I'm exaggerating a bit.

                    But you can't tell me they judge "spoiled" NBA players who they deem to be everything that's wrong with the game of basketball a lot harsher than some lesbian who played 4 years of college and in the Olympics and then a couple years of women's pro ball making $25K a year. To them, those people are everything that's right about basketball.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      Webber made money at Michigan, but not $120M like that contract he signed with the Kings.

                      Whatever money he made in college, he earned it. Just like Reggie Bush at USC. Those guys made millions upon millions for the NCAA and their respective universities, it's not even funny.

                      From a moral standpoint, I don't have any problems with guys like Webber and Bush getting the ca$h they got in college. Zero. They earned it. And they sure as hell earned some serious cash for the NCAA.
                      They are getting paid. According to the Uof M web site, and i think I'm reading it right, it costs $20,000 a year in state to attend, $40,000 a year for out of staters. That comes to over $100,000 in compensation over 5 years, which is what the scholarships usually run if you live in Michigan, $200,000 if you came form out of state.

                      http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financia...asics/cost.asp

                      USC costs around $44,000 dollars a year according to the web site below.

                      http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9392.html

                      So, no loans to pay back, a structured study environment with tutors and study hall, and most programs have a dietician to make sure you are eating right. Could they use a little spending money? Sure, but what college kid couldn't? I don't buy the arguement that they are not getting compensated.

                      As for Webber, he was a great player. Had he not gotten traded to G.S. and then matched up with Shaq the next in Orlando who knows what might have happened? He was like most great players, Reggie included, that had to go against teams that were always better.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                        They are getting paid. According to the Uof M web site, and i think I'm reading it right, it costs $20,000 a year in state to attend, $40,000 a year for out of staters. That comes to over $100,000 in compensation over 5 years, which is what the scholarships usually run if you live in Michigan, $200,000 if you came form out of state.

                        http://www.finaid.umich.edu/Financia...asics/cost.asp

                        USC costs around $44,000 dollars a year according to the web site below.

                        http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/9392.html

                        So, no loans to pay back, a structured study environment with tutors and study hall, and most programs have a dietician to make sure you are eating right. Could they use a little spending money? Sure, but what college kid couldn't? I don't buy the arguement that they are not getting compensated.

                        Yeah, they get compensated with scholarships. I don't argue that. I'm just saying whatever money/cars/housing they got under the table isn't wrong from a moral (not legal) standpoint because certain athletes generate millions up on millions for the NCAA.

                        A few select guys generate way more money than what their scholarships are worth. Bush and Webber are two specific examples. I don't have a problem with them getting paid like that and I think there are way bigger issues that that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          ....not overwhelming? What the hell?

                          If 20/10/5 isn't overwhelming, what the **** is?

                          Bird, Baylor, Garnett, Webber.

                          There's your list of 20/10/5 forwards. Ever.
                          Try 20,000 pts, 10,000 rebounds or 5,000 assists.

                          Out of those marks Webber's met . . . oops.

                          But I'm someone who doesn't think Bill Walton should be in the HOF - or Grant Hill or Mourning.

                          One great season - or even 5 - doesn't rate being in the HOF.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                            Try 20,000 pts, 10,000 rebounds or 5,000 assists.

                            Out of those marks Webber's met . . . oops.

                            But I'm someone who doesn't think Bill Walton should be in the HOF - or Grant Hill or Mourning.

                            One great season - or even 5 - doesn't rate being in the HOF.
                            Walton, Hill and Mourning had great college careers. Webber had a great college career too, leading a band of freshman to the NCAA Final. That was unprecedented back then.

                            There are plenty of women's players in the HOF who had great college careers and then careers nobody gave a cared about after their college days. How do you measure Webber against that?

                            There are guys from South America and Europe who had a few great tournamounts in either the Olympics or World Championships who never came close to 20K, 10K rebounds or 5K assists in whatever league they played in, but they're in the HOF.

                            How do you measure Webber against those guys?

                            The whole concept of the Basketball HOF as it is right now is just pretty obscure. You're holding certain guys in the NBA to a way higher standard. IMO, Webber's accomplishments and what he displayed as a player just blow away a lot of the careers of many people in HOF.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                              Originally posted by d_c View Post
                              Walton, Hill and Mourning had great college careers. Webber had a great college career too, leading a band of freshman to the NCAA Final. That was unprecedented back then.

                              There are plenty of women's players in the HOF who had great college careers and then careers nobody gave a cared about after their college days. How do you measure Webber against that?

                              There are guys from South America and Europe who had a few great tournamounts in either the Olympics or World Championships who never came close to 20K, 10K rebounds or 5K assists in whatever league they played in, but they're in the HOF.

                              How do you measure Webber against those guys?

                              The whole concept of the Basketball HOF as it is right now is just pretty obscure. You're holding certain guys in the NBA to a way higher standard. IMO, Webber's accomplishments and what he displayed as a player just blow away a lot of the careers of many people in HOF.
                              Webber played 2 years in college and was good, not spectacular - I can accept a college argument for Walton, not for Webber.

                              But in general I was comparing him to NBA players. What it boils down to is this for me: 5 all-star games and only 1 All-NBA 1st-team selection.

                              If that's all you have going for you, you better at least have longevity or have done something special in the playoffs - or both (see Reggie Miller). Webber has neither.
                              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chris Webber to call his final timeout

                                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                                Webber played 2 years in college and was good, not spectacular - I can accept a college argument for Walton, not for Webber.

                                But in general I was comparing him to NBA players. What it boils down to is this for me: 5 all-star games and only 1 All-NBA 1st-team selection.
                                That's a very valid argument to compare him like that to other NBA players.

                                But this is the Basketball Hall of Fame we're talking about, not the NBA Hall of Fame (such a thing doesn't exist).

                                Webber's accomplishments as a player would look pretty good next to most players in the Bball HOF. Not all of them are NBA players. Just from a personal opinion, I think Webber's accomplishments in both college in the NBA outshine a lot of people in the HOF who had couple good international tournamounts.

                                When people talk about the HOF, they're totally forgetting about how many people are in it who's careers they would never spend 10 seconds talking about while they analyze Webber's career with a fine toothed comb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X